American Society of Church History

Church and State in the Byzantine Empire: A Reconsideration of the Problem of

Caesaropapism
Author(s): Deno J. Geanakoplos
Source: Church History, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1965), pp. 381-403
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Society of Church
History
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3163118
Accessed: 09/04/2010 02:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Society of Church History and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Church History.

http://www.jstor.org
 CHURCH AND STATE IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE:
A RECONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEM
OF CAESAROPAPISM
DENO J. GEANAKOPLOS,Professor of History, University of Illinois

I Introduction: The Problem

In the medieval theocratic societies of both the Byzantine East
and the Latin West, where the influence of Christian precepts so
strongly pervaded all aspects of life, it was inevitable that the institu-
tions of church and state, of sacerdotium and regnum to use the tradi-
tional Latin terms, be closely tied to one another. But whereas in the
West, at least after the investiture conflict of the eleventh century,
the pope managed to exert a strong political influence over secular
rulers, notably the Holy Roman Emperor, in the East, from the very
foundation of Constantinople in the fourth century, the Byzantine
emperor seemed clearly to dominate over his chief ecclesiastical of-
ficial, the patriarch.
Certain modern scholars, impressed by what they consider to
have been the unlimited control exercised by the Byzantine emperor
over the church, have applied to the imperial authority the term
"Caesaropapism"-meaning the concentration of complete civil as well
as religious power in the hands of one person, as if he were at once
both emperor and pope. The implication is that the Byzantine church
was in effect a department of state. To be sure in recent years a
number of authorities have become more cautious in the use of the
term Caesaropapism,but the word is still not infrequently encountered
in the works of important medievalists, Western as well as Byzantine.
It is the aim of this study to re-examine the relationship between im-
perial authority and the Byzantine church and, by means of a new
approach to and organization of the material, to define more clearly
the degree and kind of control actually exercised by the emperor over
the Eastern church. As a result it is hoped that a more accurate ap-
praisal of the validity of the term Caesaropapismas applied to Byzan-
tium will be possible.1
A primary reason for the wide currency of the term Caesaropap-
ism--which by the way is of modern Western coinage and is not to
be found in the Byzantine sources-is that scholars have too often at-
tempted to define Byzantine political theory from the Western point
of view. In the West, at least after the year 800, sacerdotium and
regnum were in the hands of two different persons, pope and West-
ern emperor, separated geographically by the Alps and who, after the
mid-eleventh century, were at times in violent conflict for political
supremacy (though to be sure papal authority in strictly spiritual mat-
ters was seldom questioned by the emperor). In Byzantium, on the
381
382 CHURCH HISTORY
other hand, there was no such sharp dichotomy between the religious
and secular spheres. Though two individuals, emperor and patriarch,
held different offices, they resided in the same place and more often
than not worked together. Indeed, throughout the Byzantine period,
a number of imperial legal enactments as well as pronouncements by
leading canonists attest to the theory of close cooperation between em-
peror and patriarch for the well being of the empire. In the words of
the oft-quoted statement from the Epanagoge of the Emperor Leo
VI (which may well reflect the influence of the famous Patriarch
Photius): "As the polity (poli.teia) consists, like man, of parts and
members the greatest and most necessary parts are the Emperor and
the Patriarch. Wherefore the peace and felicity of subjects in body
and soul is [depends on] the agreement and concord of the kingship
and priesthood in all things."3 More important from the pragmatic
view (since the Epanagoge was never actually promulgated) is a
statement that the historian Leo the Deacon ascribes to the tenth cen-
tury emperor, John Tzimiskes: "I acknowledge two powers in this
life: the priesthood and the Empire; the Creator of the world has en-
trusted to the former the care of souls, to the latter the care of bodies.
If neither part is damaged, the well-being of the world is secure."4
The above statements, which can easily be multiplied, express then
the ideal relationship of imperium and sacerdotium in terms of a kind
of symphonic duet between two divinely ordained institutions, the
primary function of which is to preserve order and maintain harmony
in imitation of the divine order in heaven. This constitution of two di-
vinely appointed and in a sense parallel authorities is, it is clear, far
from the concept of Caesaropapismor complete subordination of one
power to the other.
Now even a cursory glance at Byzantine history reveals that this
was an ideal principle; in actual fact, conflict between emperor and
patriarch was not infrequent. Indeed it would seem that in such cases
the will of the emperor, with a few notable exceptions, prevailed. If
we except the unique case of Patriarch Michael Cerularius with his
exalted claims to religious and secular power,5 the church as a whole
generally accepted the authority of the emperor at least to share in
the administrative control of the church to the point of his naming and
even, though under strong protest, deposing patriarchs. To the su-
perficial observer of Byzantine events, then, especially from the van-
tage point of the West (where by the twelfth century the pope had
triumphed over secular attempts to interfere in ecclesiastical admin-
istration) it is easy to understand why it seemed that an absolutist
control of the Byzantine emperor over the church obtained. In West-
ern eyes the Byzantine emperor had usurped not only the function of
the pope over church administration but even some of the spiritual
powers of the clergy as well.
 CHURCHAND STATE IN THE BYZANTINEEMPIRE 383
Before we begin our analysis it should be noted that there are cer-
tain fundamental difficulties inherent in the source material itself that
make it difficult to reach consistent conclusions. In the first place,
Byzantium, like other medieval states, never possessed an official writ-
ten constitution summarizing the basic organization of government
with its distribution of authority. No official document lists all the
specific constitutional powers of the emperor. Not until near the very
end of the empire in fact was an official attempt even made by the
imperial government to set down in writing the emperor's powers, or
at least part of them, over the church.6 To be sure there are the nu-
merous scattered sources contained in both civil and canon law, such
as the edicts of individual emperors, also the nomocanones and the acts
of local or ecumenical councils. There are also the collections and in-
terpretations of the great canonists, Zonaras, Balsamon, Chomatianos,
and above all of Matthew Blastares, all of whose pronouncements on
church affairs, like those of the earlier Roman jurisconsults on civil
law, came with the passing of time to assume a semi-official force of
law-to form a kind of tradition in the church. What complicated the
situation further was that each emperor, as the fountainhead of law,
was able to legislate on his own, the usual practice in the event of ob-
jection to a predecessor's edict being to blunt the force of it through
enactment of a new one. Moreover, with respect to canon law and
its interpretation, there was nothing at bottom, except of course con-
science, to prevent the individual canonist from expounding his own
understanding of the existing canonical texts. Nor should we overlook
the development of certain practices or customs in connection with
church-state relations which in time also began to take on the force
of law-practices such as the patriarch's demand for an orthodox con-
fession of faith from the emperor at the time of his coronation.7
These conditions sometimes make it possible to offer more than one
seemingly valid interpretation of the same texts, especially of the ec-
clesiastical canons which are so fundamental in determining the ex-
tent of imperial power over the church. For example, some historians
have emphasized that Theodore Balsamon, the authoritative twelfth
century canonist, remarks in one passage that the emperor is "sub-
ject neither to the laws of the empire nor to the ecclesiastical canons
of the church."8 This statement certainly seems unambiguous enough.
To judge, however, from the context in which this celebrated passage
is to be found-a discussion as to whether priests and monks can, at
the order of a bishop or the emperor, engage in secular types of work9
-Balsamon's statement appears to fall under the rubric of disciplinary
canons and therefore to have no connection with the area of dogma.
(Alivizatos and other modern Greek theologians in fact maintain that
the term ecclesiastical canon does not apply to dogma but only to ec-
clesiastical discipline and administration.)10 Hence it would seem that
384 CHURCH HISTORY
the apparent significance of this particular passage, which is frequently
cited in support of unlimited imperial power over all aspects of the
church, has, in the light of its context, to be definitely qualified.
In trying to emphasizethe extent of imperialpower over the church
one may point as evidence to certain religious titles given the emperor,
especially in the works of the canonists-titles such as "anointed of
the Lord" (Christos Kyriou) or that of "living icon of Christ" (zosa
eikon Christou). Yet a scrutiny of the sources reveals that at least the
twelfth century canonist Balsamon and especially the fourteenth cen-
tury Matthew Vlastares (whose work is considered to mark the culmi-
nation of all previous canonistic development)" sometimes refer also
to the patriarchs in precisely these same words.12
More examples can be cited of ambiguities or seeming ambiguities
in the source material. But these will perhaps suffice to indicate that
in the absence of a comprehensive, official document which may be
used as a constitutional frame of reference, how difficult it is to draw
consistent conclusions on the basis of appeal to documents which ex-
press varying shades of opinion. An analogy with medieval England
might be drawn. There as in Byzantium there was no fundamental
law which was superior to other statutes and by which laws could be
tested for constitutionality. Since there was no formal definition of
the king's power in one document, this meant that not only parlia-
mentary statutes but developingtradition, as was the case in Byzantium,
came to have virtually as strong a position as other types of law.13
Byzantine political theory as such may be said to begin in the
early fourth century with Eusebius of Caesarea, the ecclesiastical
adviser of Constantine the Great. Eusebius based his theories on
scripture and Christian tradition, as well as on a strong influence of
Hellenistic ideas of kingship (Basileia) and the Roman "Caesaropap-
istic" idea of the emperor as Pontifex Maximus, highest priest.14 (It
must be observed that in pagan Rome civil officials served as priests
during the period of sacrifices and that no priestly caste as such
existed.)
According to Byzantine theory as based on Eusebius, the source
of all authority in the universe, both religious and secular, is God.
The Divine Logos, that is Christ, is the supreme priest and king on
earth, uniting in himself both regnum and sacerdotium. When Christ
left the world the power was divided into two spheres, the spiritual be-
ing assigned to his apostles and the civil authority to Caesar. And
throughout their history the Byzantines believed that the emperor de-
rived his authority directly from God; hence the title christos Kyriou.1
It was the Byzantine view, furthermore, that the church hierarchy
derived its authority from Christ through the apostles. But this seem-
ing indirection was, for the clergy, not a mark of inferiority; on the
contrary, they could, in a certain sense, be considered even superior to
 CHURCHAND STATE IN THE BYZANTINEEMPIRE 385
the emperor because of the purely spiritual nature of their ecclesi-
astical authority.
What we would call the secular realm was presided over by the
emperor. His realm was the universal Roman Empire which, having
become the more perfect Christian Roman Empire after Constantine's
conversion, was established by God on earth in imitation (mimesis is
the famous Greek term) of the divine order or kingdom in heaven.6l
It was the Emperor's sacred duty to seek the conversion of non-Chris-
tians outside the church, whence perhaps the application to Constantine
of the term "Bishop of those without the church."'7 As the representa-
tive of God over God's kingdom on earth (Basileia) the emperor is
responsible for the organization of the empire, for the establishment
of justice, and for the maintenance of peace within the realm. He is
the source of law, but as a Christian he must at all times base the laws
of order and justice he establishes, on Christian principles. As Eu-
sebius envisioned it, the emperor was to frame his earthly government
according to the model of the divine original in heaven. Following
this conception, the emperor was a kind of mediator between God
and man on earth, the Vicegerent of God, as it were.l8
This, in very brief outline, is Byzantine political theory as based
primarily on the assumptions of Eusebius and transmitted through-
out the millenium of Byzantine history. Although there is disagree-
ment among scholars as to Eusebius' precise meaning at certain points,
it must be apparent that the realms of church and state are not here
differentiated with complete clarity. There seems to be a certain in-
terpenetration or even a blurring of the two spheres, a fact which was
to lead to conflict between emperor and patriarch and makes it dif-
ficult for us to assess the degree of imperial control over the church.
Certain contemporary scholars take what seems at first glance a
commendableapproach to our problem, placing great emphasis on the
results of a series of actual confrontations between emperors and
patriarchs.l9 With this pragmatic approach one would find it difficult
to take issue. Emphasis on immediate results is certainly a valid and
important way to interpret power conflicts. Another method, how-
ever, with probably more to be said for it, would be to examine the
long-range effects of these confrontations in order to see whether or
not any permanent changes were effected in the church over the
centuries.
In the early Byzantine period the most frequent issues involved
in the clashes between patriarch and emperor were basically dogmatic
-Arianism, Monophisitism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm. And in these
conflicts the will of individual emperors seemed, temporarily at least,
to have prevailed.2 But a fundamental issue, as to whether an em-
peror unilaterally, that is by imperial decree, could alter the prescribed
386 CHURCH HISTORY

dogma of the church, was not really resolved. For despite triumphs
during the lifetime of individual emperors, it is obvious that none of
these heresies supported by the emperors, was in the long run able to
prevail in the church. On their own authority emperors did summon
ecumenical councils and were able to "pack" the assembly or other-
wise to manipulate it.21 But the basic question of whether, other than
through such indirect methods, an emperor could bend the church to
his will and actually alter dogma was to appear again and again under
later rulers, especially under the Palaeologi.
A certain difference may be noted in the conflicts between em-
perors and patriarchs before and after the end of the Iconoclast strug-
gle in the ninth century. Whereas in the earlier dogmatic conflicts
strong emperors were frequently able to impose their will on the
church, if only during their own reigns, after the ninth century and
especially during the filioque controversy under the Palaeologi, even
this was usually to prove impossible. It seems reasonable to believe,
as G. Ostrogorsky indicates in an early article dealing with the first
nine centuries, that the dramatic protests, in the seventh and eighth
centuries, of Maximos the Confessor, John of Damascus, and Theo-
dore Studites during the struggles over Monothelitism and Iconoclasm,
had something to do with the stronger opposition of the church, serv-
ing to inspire patriarchs to more active resistance of imperial de-
mands. Ostrogorsky in fact cites evidence for what he terms the de-
velopment of a dyarchy between imperial and ecclesiastical power after
the earlier period.22 One might, however, be hesitant about this part
of his thesis if the term dyarchy is meant to convey the impression of
a "fifty-fifty" partnership between emperor and patriarch. The rela-
tionship between the two powers would seem to have been a complex
give-and-take of authority and influence on various levels-a kind of
interdependence,23 characterized ideally in the civil codes and especially
the pro-patriarchal Epanagoge as a symphonia, that is a concord or
harmony.24 In actual practice the relationship may well have been
mixed, a blend of domination by the emperor over the church in cer-
tain areas, and perhaps an absence of imperial authority in other
spheres. But how can we determine what the nature and extent of
the emperor's authority in ecclesiastical affairs actually was, in par-
ticular in which spheres his control did or did not obtain?
If we attempt to analyze the complex of temporal and spiritual
relations with reference to the problem as we have here set it forth,
it would seem that there are three different facets or spheres, each of
which must be individually considered. First is the purely temporal
realm for which the emperor alone made the laws, and which, his-
torians would probably agree, was under the direct and complete au-
thority of the emperor. The second sphere would include that area of
the spiritual or ecclesiastical realm dealing essentially with the ad-
 CHURCH AND STATE IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE 387
ministrative or organizational matters of the church such as the es-
tablishment and redistricting of sees, disciplinary matters affecting
the clergy (which we have no time to enter into here) and, perhaps
most important, the appointment to or dismissal from patriarchal of-
fice. Control over these various aspects of what might be called the
"external" side of the church,25was in case of conflict exercised in
the last analysis by the emperor. It must be emphasized, however, that
the church hierarchy normally shared, or the emperor let it believe it
shared, in this control, in a sensitive interplay of authority and
influence.
The third facet of Byzantine church-state relations has to do with
the most vital aspect of the church. It concerns the holy sacraments
and the most basic dogmas of the faith as set forth in the New Testa-
ment, the canonical epistles of the Fathers, and the first seven ecu-
menical councils-that is what would be included in the tradition of
the church.26
There is, then, a threefold division of spheres: first, the secular
falling entirely under the control of the emperor; second, that per-
taining to the organization and administration of the church-that is
church polity. The third sphere, the inner or "esoteric" form of the
church, despite notable imperial attempts at interference, belonged as
we shall see to the clergy alone. Of course none of the three spheres
enjoyed a really separate existence in theocratic Byzantium. They were
intertwined, interpenetrated, and together they formed an organic
whole-in Byzantine eyes the kingdom of God on earth. Neverthe-
less, only if we manage to keep these three realms differentiated can
we hope to understand clearly the complexities of this ecclesiastical
and imperial relationship, in particular the authority of the emperor
over the church. A basic reason for misunderstanding the emperor's
role in the church is that scholars have not always clearly perceived
the delimitation as well as the interpenetration of these three spheres.
Let us now examine in detail the function of imperial authority
in each area. We need say little about the secular sphere. All scholars
would be in essential agreement that the Christian emperor, as the
fountainhead of law, was responsible for the temporal administration
of the empire. The church, in fact, considered it a duty to follow im-
perial leadership in secular matters. But one should not forget that
this sphere was permeated throughout by the moral influence of
Christian ideals, the church deeming it a responsibility that imperial
law should be humane and in accord with the moral teachings of the
church.27
It is the second sphere, with its interplay of imperial and patri-
archal authority, which formed the main point of contact between
emperor and church and which witnessed some of the most dramatic
388 CHURCH HISTORY
encounters between emperors and patriarchs. This area, involving the
question of control over the administrative form of the church and
its delimitation from the "esoteric" area, has caused the greatest mis-
understanding among scholars. To this sphere we shall now turn.
II The "External" form of the Church
and Imperial Authority
As protector of the church the emperor took a very active, even
dominant, role in its organization and administration. To be sure,
the degree of his influence depended to a considerable extent on the
strength and personality of the particular emperor and patriarch of
the moment.28Most striking of the imperial powers in this area was
his authority to appoint the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople,
the highest official of the church. From a list of three names sug-
gested by the Synodos Endemousa (the permanent Holy Synod in
Constantinople) the emperor would select one. If none pleased him he
could himself suggest that of another who, with the sanction of the
Synod, would then be appointed patriarch.29 No less important was
his authority, but only in practice not in theory, to depose the patri-
arch. Again, however, this was supposed to be done with the approval
of the Holy Synod-an approval technically not too difficult to obtain
if the emperor were sufficiently determined.30
Of course the emperor not infrequently met with sharp opposi-
tion from the clergy, particularly in his attempts to depose a patriarch.
But in the end, especially in the earlier centuries, his will almost al-
ways prevailed. We may cite the case of the most illustrious of all
patriarchs, Photius, who, for political reasons, was deposed by Em-
peror Basil I. Even when Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus raised justifi-
able objections to the fourth marriage of Emperor Leo the Wise on
the grounds that it contravened the disciplinary canons of the church,
the Emperor managed finally to depose him.31 The most ambitious
of the Byzantine patriarchs, Michael Cerularius of the mid-eleventh
century, despite the great authority he had succeeded in arrogating to
himself and the popularity he temporarily enjoyed with the people of
Constantinople, was also forced to abdicate. And later in the thir-
teenth century, the monk Arsenios, because of his opposition to Michael
Palaeologus' usurpation of the throne, was deposed as patriarch-but
not before fomenting a virtual civil war against the regime.32
Even though the Palaeologan emperors in the last period of the
empire met with great difficulty in deposing incumbent patriarchs,
following their policy of ecclesiastical rapprochementwith Rome they
were still usually able to prevail. One striking exception may be cited,
however; that of 1450, during the final miserable years of empire,
when the unionist emperor, Constantine XI Palaeologus, was over-
ruled by the Holy Synod. It, in defiance of the imperial will, not only
deposed the incumbent pro-unionist patriarch but blocked the Emper-
 CHURCH AND STATE IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE 389
or's appointment of a pro-unionist replacement.33
Further privileges of the emperor in the realm of church ad-
ministration and organization, both in theory and practice, were his
power to redistrict dioceses in accord with political or ecclesiastical
exigency, the right to translate bishops from one see to another, and
the authority to alter the rank or honor (time, in Greek) of the rela-
tive sees. As the canonist Zonaras put it: "The Emperor can trans-
form an episcopate into a metropolitan see, free him [the bishop]
from the other metropolitans,and redistribute the episcopal districts."34
We have yet to discuss an imperial privilege in the domain of ec-
clesiastical administration which, until the very end of the empire, the
emperors always exercised as their own: the right to convoke ecu-
menical councils.35 Today of course the pope claims it as his privilege
to summon general councils. But during the long existence of By-
zantium the emperor zealously guarded the precedent which he be-
lieved had originally been established by Constantine the Great at the
time of the first Council of Nicaea in 325. Centuries later, at the
Council of Florence, the ceremony for the signing of the document of
religious union was held up over a severe argument between emperor
and pope as to who first should sign his name to the forms.36 The
argument hinged on this very question: who had the authority to call
a council into being in the first place.
It should be stressed that according to the traditional Byzantine
view, no council, even if summoned by the emperor, or by emperor
and pope together, could be considered truly ecumenical unless all four
Eastern patriarchs, together with the pope, were in attendance or at
least represented. Thus Michael VIII Palaeologus was never able to
secure popular Greek approval of the ecumenicity of the unionist Coun-
cil of Lyons in 1274 because of the popular Byzantine conviction that
all the Eastern patriarchs had not been properly represented.37The
Greco-Italian monk Barlaam put it well a few years later when, at
the papal court of Avignon, he addressed the pope on the objections
of the Byzantine people to religious union with Rome. He said:
The Greek legates at Lyons were in fact sent there neither by the
four Patriarchs who govern the Eastern church nor by the Greek peo-
ple, but by the Emperor alone who, without trying to get the support
of his people, sought only by force to realize the union . . .38
With respect to ecumenical councils, always a matter of extreme
concern to the East, there was still another practice-evidently un-
specified in the canonistic texts themselves-which the Byzantines
regarded as the sole prerogative of the emperor. For a council to be
considered valid it was required that its proceedings be signed by the
emperor. And before these conciliar decisions could go into effect
as the law of the church, it was necessary that they be promulgated
as imperial law-that is be incorporated into the civil law of the Em-
pire.39 As such they were included in nomocanones and took on the
390 CHURCH HISTORY
force of civil statutes. This is not to say that the canons, as a part
of the civil law code, could legally be revoked by the imperal authority.
Certainly, as we have seen, the emperor always had the power to revoke
or rather to nullify secular law. But the question was quite different
when it involved the ecclesiastical canons. Even when the emperor
tried to infringe upon the purely disciplinary canons, he might well
meet with opposition-as was the case of Leo the Wise's fourth mar-
riage. But as we shall see, in the case of an attempt on his part to
change the more fundamental type of conciliar decision, the doctrine
of the church, the emperor always met with violent and intransigent
opposition from most of the clergy as well as the people.
Before we discuss this question which involves our third cat-
egory, the "esoteric" form of the church, let us look at a related prob-
lem which has caused a good deal of misunderstanding-the emperor's
so-called "liturgical" privileges. These were religious in nature and
the emperor's possession of these special privileges, so strange to mod-
ern Western secular eyes, has further contributed to the belief in the
emperor's Caesaropapistic authority over the church.
III "Liturgical" Privileges of the Emperor
Because of the special position held by the emperor in Christian
society as the representative of God on earth (as noted, the Byzantines
often called him "the living icon of Christ")40 the Byzantine church
could not look upon him as an ordinary layman and therefore be-
stowed upon him certain special privileges of a religious nature. These
extraordinary privileges have been termed by modern scholars "lit-
urgical," or less accurately, "sacerdotal."4' Now these privileges, nor-
mally associated only with the clergy, would seem to fall somewhere
between what we have termed the external and the esoteric areas of
the church. The analogy might be useful of equating these privileges
with what the Latin church calls the sacramentalia (in Greek, mys-
teriakai teletai, roughly "lesser mystical ceremonies") as against the
sacraments proper, the latter of which are exclusively the province
of the clerics and may be said to form part of the inner or esoteric
form of Christianity.
The most frequently mentioned liturgical privilege of the em-
peror was that of entering into the sanctuary of the church, that area
where the altar is situated and the holy mysteries are performed. Strik-
ing as this privilege may seem, we shall attach somewhat less im-
portance to it if we recall that in the Eastern church anyone in minor
orders such as cantor, reader, porter, exorcist, has this right of pene-
trating into the sanctuary.42
The Byzantine emperor could also preach to the congregation.
Leo VI the Wise we know took great pride and joy in regaling the
Byzantine populace with learned sermons delivered in person during
 CHURCH AND STATE IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE 391
church festivals.43 At first glace this seems rather remarkable, given
the fact that in the medieval period the Western church looked with
great disfavor, indeed generally prohibited, the activities of lay theo-
logians (witness the Waldensians and their attempts to preach and
explain the Gospel).
An even more impressive imperial privilege was that of receiv-
ing communion in the same manner as the priests. The emperor would
take the holy bread directly into his own hands from the paten and
drink the wine immediately from the chalice-communicate himself,
so to speak. This is to be contrasted with normal practice with respect
to the Greek laity, which receives both the bread and wine from a
spoon held in the hands of the officiating priest. An important quali-
fication must be made, however, with regard to this privilege. The
ability to effect the miraculous transformation of the bread and wine
into the body and blood of Christ, the climax of the liturgy (in Greek,
called metabole or less correctly as a result of Western influence, me-
tousiousis, roughly equivalent to the Latin "transubstantiation")44be-
longs to the clergy alone. It should be noted, therefore, that before
the emperor could partake of communion the services of a priest were
required to consecrate the bread and wine.45
In addition the emperor could bless the congregation with the
trikir, the three-candled candelabra symbolizing the Trinity, in the
manner of the bishop, and also cense the icons and the people. A pas-
sage from the authoritative twelfth century Byzantine canonist Theo-
dore Balsamon, whose attitude is generally pro-imperialist, describes
most of these liturgical privileges of the emperor with these words:
"The Orthodox Emperors (who choose the patriarchs) by the invoca-
tionof the Holy Trinitybecomethe christoiof the Lord,unhinderedand
wheneverthey wish can enter into the holy sacrificialplace (hieron)
andcenseandblesswiththe trikirlikethe bishop.It has alsobeengiven
to them to preach to the people . . ."46
Lastly, we must mention a privilege of the emperor which was
his alone and which he did not share even with the clergy. We refer
to his anointment at the time of his coronation,47following the ex-
ample of King David of the Jews. The most recent authoritative
scholarship holds that this practice of imperial anointment first ap-
peared among the Byzantines at the coronation of Theodore I Las-
caris in the early thirteenth century at Nicaea, as a result of the in-
fluence of the nearby Latin Empire of Constantinople.48Another
theory maintains that it was an accepted Byzantine practice to anoint
the "Basileus and Autocrator" already under Basil I, that is as early
as the ninth century.49 Be that as it may, it must be noted that even
the act of imperial coronation and accompanying anointment was sub-
ject to a certain ecclesiastical restriction. For the Patriarch could re-
fuse to crown the emperor if he did not first approve his profession
of faith. (This of course did not mean that the church had the right
392 CHURCH HISTORY
to elect the emperor.) The requirement of patriarchal approval of
the imperial confession of faith dated from the accession of Antasta-
sius during the Monophysitic troubles at the end of the sixth century.50
At times certain patriarchs also attempted to impose moral require-
ments on individual candidates for the throne, as in the case of the
strong-willed Patriarch Polyeuctes, who in 969 refused to crown the
usurper John Tzimisces until the latter had first put away his mis-
tress, Theophano, his collaborator in the murder of his imperial pre-
decessor Nicephorus Phocas.51
According to the most convincing opinion, at the coronation the
patriarch acted in the capacity of the second most important "civil"
official of the empire, while in the accompanying ceremony of anoint-
ment the patriarch's function seems primarily to have been sacerdotal.52
As noted, anointment at coronation (whenever it first occurred) was
a privilege of the emperor alone, and this act helped further to set
him apart from all other men and give his reign the stamp of divine
approval. It seems probable that the oil (chrism) of baptism and of
holy unction (euchelaion) was looked upon as different from that
used in the ceremony of imperial anointment.53
Despite these impressive liturgical privileges of the emperor, most
of which were shared by the Byzantine clergy, and notwithstanding
the emphasis placed upon their importance by some modern historians,
it must be admitted that the emperor always remained a layman. Even
though earlier emperors such as Marcian and Justinian called them-
selves kingpriest (rex et sacerdos), especially when dealing with the
popes, and though emperors were not infrequently referred to by
the Byzantine canonists as arch-priest (archiereus),54 the emperor in
point of fact had no right to perform any of the sacraments. Thus
although these liturgical privileges set the emperor above and apart
from ordinary laymen, conferring upon him a kind of hieratic char-
acter,55in the last analysis they did not make him a cleric.56
IV The "Esoteric" Form of the Church
and Imperial Authority
It was in the sphere of the inner or "esoteric" form of the church
that, in our view, the absolutism of the emperor was truly blocked. This
is not to say that at a time of serious political crisis a host of em-
perors, from Justinian all the way to the last ruler Constantine XI
Palaeologus, did not make resolute attempts to exert control over the
formulation or revision of dogma in the broader interest of the sur-
vival of the empire.57 To be sure, in accordance with the character-
istic Byzantine concept of oikonomia, it was in some quarters accepted
that in case of extreme political necessity the emperor was empowered
to attempt the accomodation of the church to the exigencies of the
state. But this seems to have held true only with respect to certain
administrative or external aspects of the church and did not apply to
 CHURCH AND STATE IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE 393
the doctrinal, the more esoteric, sphere.58
The esoteric form of the church contained within itself what we
may call the more profound truths of the faith, essential fundamental
truths which to the Orthodox were and still are considered necessary
for salvation, the true end of human life. These truths include both
the church's teaching on dogma and the sacraments. The dogmatic
beliefs were those formulated in written form by the ecumenical coun-
cils and deal primarily with the nature of the Trinity and the In-
carnation.59 These in fact took such crystallized form as to become
virtually inviolable. And any tampering with these dogmas or, as it
was put, with the "purity" of the faith was considered ipso facto
heretical.6?
The sacraments (mysteria in Greek), so necessary for salvation,
could be administered only by the clergy, one sacrament, that of ordi-
nation, only by a bishop. In the case of baptism the chrism could be
blessed only by bishops, then administered by a priest. (Incidentally,
in the Eastern church the number of the sacraments was apparently
not officially fixed at seven until very late.)61
Although the question of the celebration of the sacraments by
the emperors themselves never seems to have been raised in Byzantium,
there were not a few imperial efforts made, in the interest of the
state, to alter the traditional dogmas formulated in general council.
Yet it is surely significant that in the more than ten centuries of
Byzantine history, only one or two examples at most can be found of
emperors who sought to alter church dogma when no pressing ex-
ternal danger threatened, that is, purely on intellectual grounds or in
accordance with personal belief. Such seems to have been the case
with Justinian's interest in the heresy of Aphthartodocetism in which
he dabbled at the end of his reign.62 The same was probably true even
with respect to Leo III's issuance of his famous edict against the
images in 730.63 On the other hand Justinian's condemnation of the
"Three Chapters" and his insistence on certain views under the pres-
sure of Monophysitism (several scholars believe that he even managed
to incorporate his "reinterpretation" of Chalcedonian doctrine into
the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council)6 were certainly motivated
by political reasons. Now when an emperor, actuated by pressing
political considerations, did attempt to reshape dogma, there was al-
ways a certain number of supporters- politiques we may call them-
who were willing to go along for the sake of the state. Such was the
case in the questions of Monophysitism, Monothelitism, possibly of
Iconoclasm, and, certainly with regard to the later Palaeologan em-
perors' attempts to foster religious union with Rome in the face of
the military threat of Charles of Anjou and, subsequently, of the even
greater danger from the Ottoman Turks.65
394 CHURCH HISTORY
One way, it would seem, of determining whether or not the em-
peror, in the mind of the Byzantine public at large, possessed the au-
thority unilaterally to alter dogma would be to point to imperial suc-
cesses in this area when no political motives were involved. But evi-
dence for such successes cannot be found. And indeed the intransi-
gent opposition evoked among the people even when the very fate of
the empire was at stake would indicate all the more that he did not
have this right. Probably the best indication of the vulnerability of
the emperors in their attempts to tamper with already crystallized
dogma is the repeated failure of the Palaeologan emperors of the last
two centuries to impose union with Rome on the Eastern church when
it was absolutely clear to those best familiar with the political real-
ities that only through such a union could the empire secure the mil-
itary aid necessary to repel the Turks. The catch of course was the
invariable condition that Rome always attached to unionist negotia-
tions: insertion into the creed of the Latin filioque clause-the chief
dogmatic difference between the two churches-and in effect sub-
ordination of the Greek church to Rome. For most of the Byzantines,
however-for the mass of the common people, most of the lower
clergy, all the monks, and the greater part of the higher clergy and
nobles-acceptance of the filioque would have constituted a funda-
mental change in the dogmatic basis of the faith. To them it meant
not only apostasy but, as opponents of Michael Palaeologus including
his own sister termed it, a betrayal of the "purity of the faith." This
in turn, the people believed, would lead not only to loss of God's
favor but to inevitable destruction of the empire itself.66 Such was
the conviction of most Greeks after the unionist Council of Florence
in 143967-a conviction borne out, they believed, by Constantinople's
fall to the Turks only a few years later.

It is a striking fact that during the Palaeologan epoch and es-

pecially in the reigns of the three chief unionist emperors, Michael
VIII, John VIII, and Constantine XI Palaeologus, there appeared no
imperial propagandist, official or unofficial, to preach the legal right
of the emperors to revise the church's dogma.68 Such a claim is cer-
tainly not mentioned in that remarkable but little known document
of c. 1380, issued under John V Palaeologus and repeated under his
son Manuel II, according to which the Holy Synod was constrained
to list the powers of the emperor over the church. All of these, it
should be observed, were of an administrative nature.69 Whenever it
was necessary for the Palaeologan supporters to mention doctrinal
questions-and the pro-unionists always sought to avoid this-they
stressed rather the political benefits to be derived from ecclesiastical
union. Indeed they insisted that adoption of the Latin filioque clause
entailed no fundamental change in dogma, rather a temporary admin-
 CHURCH AND STATE IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE 395
istrative accommodation of the church to Rome. Even formerly close
friends of Michael VIII raised a storm of opposition to what they
considered Michael's tampering with dogma, pointing out that the
temporary political advantage to be gained could not outweigh what
for them was to sacrifice the integrity of the faith.70 To the clever
argument of political expediency on the part of some extreme politiques
in the reign of Constantine XI, just before Constantinople's fall to
the Turks, that "let us unite with the Latins now and as soon as the
danger passes we will quickly abandon the filioque and revert to Orth-
odoxy," the future patriarch Gennadius Scholarios in effect replied:
"Do not fool yourselves; it is impossible to unite just a little bit with
the Latins."7'
There is in fact, so far as I am aware, no official document from
any period in which the emperor makes the flat claim to have com-
plete power over the church in all spheres, including the doctrinal.
Even such pro-imperialists as the canonist Theodore Balsamon and
the historian Nicetas Choniates make no statement explicitly and cat-
egorically affirming the imperial right, unilaterally and without the
agency of a general council, to alter or adjust the accepted dogma
of the church.
Many of the emperors were theologians of considerable compe-
tence-Justinian, Leo VI, Alexius Comnenos, Manuel II Palaeologus,
and others. But whenever an emperor attempted on his own to alter
dogma there was invariably aroused a great public outcry. Justinian
and Leo III, who sought to pronounce on dogma ex cathedra, to bor-
row the Western phrase, were later forced by the popular reaction
to convoke a council.72 Basiliscus' attempt to revise the beliefs of
Chalcedon was so violently rejected by the people that he was forced
to repeal it and in fact to issue an anti-encyclical condemning his own
views. And Zeno's Henoticon resulted in the schism with his patriarch
Acacius, which brought upheaval to the church for some forty years,
only to end later with the triumph of Orthodoxy. Heraclius promul-
gated his Ecthesis propounding Monothelitism with the help of his
patriarch Sergius but without reference to a council, a fact which im-
mediately provoked an uproar. About ten years later, in connection
with the same question, Constans II issued his Typus in an attempt to
silence all discussion for or against the question of wills in Christ.
The result of all this was the convocation of the Sixth Ecumenical
Council (681) in which Orthodoxy completely triumphed.73
Later emperors were wiser. It was more expedient for them to
attempt to secure their ends by other means than by a frontal attack
-the usual one with respect to dogma being the convocation of a coun-
cil and an attempt to pack it or somehow to influence the passage of
enactments imparting to their actions the sanction of legitimacy. They
396 CHURCH HISTORY
knew well that the people would accept only conciliar definitions of
dogma. Two such examples were the attempts of Michael VIII at
Lyons and John VIII at Florence. But even these emperors had a
most difficult time in achieving their aims. Ultimately even their ap-
parently legitimate conciliar definitions were rejected-Lyons not only
on the grounds of heresy in dogma but also, as we have seen, that
the four patriarchs of the East were not represented at the Council;
and Florence on the basis that the Greek delegates had signed under
duress despite the attendance of all five patriarchs of East and West
(or their vicars) and long discussions on dogmatic questions.74
Florence in particular shows that even though the emperor ap-
pealed to a council to give his program legitimacy and though he
fostered open discussion of dogmatic differences, in the last analysis
the final judgment as to acceptance of dogmatic change lay not even
in the general council, as historians commonly believe, but in accept-
ance of the actions of the council by the great mass of the people. To
be sure the question was complicated by the underlying Greek hos-
tility for the Latins as a result of the Latin occupation of Constanti-
nople in 1204 and the feeling of national pride and ecclesiastical in-
dependencefrom Rome.75 But the fact remains that in the face of al-
most inevitable doom the great majority of the Greek populace chose
to reject union with Rome, repeatedly fostered by their own emperors
as the only possible salvation for the empire from the Turks. In this
most critical juncture, when effective imperial leadership over the
church was most desperately needed, it not only revealed itself to be
limited but was actively defied by the great majority of the people,
clergy as well as laity.
Where in the final analysis, then, lay the ultimate authority or
criterion for the preservation of the faith? Who was the final judge
and defender, and what constituted the depository of the purity of
the faith if it were not, as we have seen, the emperor? The obvious
answer would seem to be-and the Byzantine sources, lay and ec-
clesiastical, are replete with such testimony-the ecumenical council.
But, as we have noted, there were some cases where the representa-
tives at councils were able to be swayed by imperial or clerical in-
timidation as at the "Robber" Council of Ephesus in 449 or by im-
perial efforts to pack the assembly as in Constantine V's Iconoclastic
Council of Hieria. If, however, the people felt that they had been be-
trayed by a council, then, as has not been adequately emphasized by
historians, they might take it upon themselves to reject its decisions.
This will of the people, a form of popular expression that reflected
clerical as well as lay opinion and which is hard for us to grasp in
concrete terms, has been referred to by some modern theologians as
the "conscience of the church."76And, it is this, in the last analysis,
even more than the general council, that was the true guardian or
 CHURCH AND STATE IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE 397
repository for the faith of the Greek church. Why did the Council of
Florence in 1439 fail if not for the very reason that the masses, this
"conscienceof the church," would not accept the decision as a true ex-
pression of the faith? The historian Ducas relates that on their re-
turn to Constantinople, after attending the deliberations over union
with the papacy at Florence, the Greek representatives, when asked
by the people why they had signed, replied: "We have signed the
union and sold our faith. . . .77 But this raises an even more funda-
mental question: had all the Greek representatives been convinced, as
they clearly were not, of the truth of the Catholic position and pro-
ceeded voluntarily to sign the decree, would the masses then have
accepted the union? The answer very probably would still have been
the same.
V Conclusion
What may we conclude from our analysis? It is clear to begin
with that the emperor's power over the church was many faceted. In
the temporal realm he was a complete autocrat, limited only theoret-
ically by the church in the application of Christian principles to civil
law. In the external or administrative aspect of ecclesiastical affairs,
it was the Byzantine ideal that the emperor as protector of the church
work hand in hand with the ecclesiastical authorities. And this was
normally the case. But when differences did arise-and they were not
infrequent, especially with respect to the appointment or deposition
of a patriarch-the imperial will seems almost invariably to have pre-
vailed. It may therefore be said that in the sphere of ecclesiastical
polity the emperor was able to exercise complete authority over the
church, subject only to the relative strength of character of each in-
cumbent emperor and patriarch.
Moreover, the emperor's so-called liturgical privileges bestowed
upon him even the appearance of a kind of sacerdotal authority. It is
primarily these two factors, virtually unlimited administrative con-
trol and his impressive liturgical privileges that have led some scholars
to term the emperor Caesaropapistic. Yet, as we have shown, the em-
peror was never able successfully to penetrate into the church's inner
core, the more spiritual form relating to dogma and the sacraments.
Although his liturgical privileges raised him above all laymen, im-
parting to him almost a hieratic character, he could not assume the
basic power of the clergy-to perform the sacraments enabling man
to achieve salvation. Nor, even more important, could he alter es-
tablished dogma. In contrast to the post-1870 papacy pronouncing on
dogma ex cathedra, he was not absolute or infallible in matters of
faith. Indeed, the frequency or infrequency of the repeated imperial
attempts to redefine dogma in the church, either directly by imperial
edict (as in the case of Leo III) or through the shield of an ecumenical
council, is less significant than the ultimate failure of every single im-
398 CHURCH HISTORY

perial attempt, in the long run, to revise the traditional dogma, with
the possible exception of certain efforts of that most arbitrarily des-
potic of rulers, Justinian.78 Imperial attempts to interfere in what we
have termed the esoteric realm of the church, in particular the sphere
of dogma, were never recognized by the will of the people, the true
depository of the Orthodox faith. In view of the repeated imperial
failures to control this vital, quintessential sphere of the church, it can
hardly be argued that imperial authority over this area was a tradi-
tionally accepted imperial right, as was the emperor's role in the ad-
ministrative sphere. With the authority of the emperor over the church
thus restricted both theoretically and in actual practice to the admin-
istrative area of church polity and to certain liturgical privileges, we
cannot speak of a truly absolute or Caesaropapistic master of the
Byzantine church.
The term Caesaropapism, seen in this light, is thus not only in-
accurate but extremely misleading. A new term is needed which
would reflect the emperor's gradation of powers, from the absolute to
the virtually non-existent, in the various spheres of the church-state
complex. A possible suggestion for a new term might be Caesaro-
procuratorism. As is well known, in the reforms instituted by Peter
the Great in the Russian church of the early eighteenth century, a
new office, that of procurator, held by a layman was created. This
official was to control or share with the clergy in the administration
of the Russian church but was to have no spiritual powers to inter-
fere in dogmatic matters and, of course, he could not dispense the
sacraments.79 Through the application of the term Caesaroprocura-
torism to Byzantium, the ambiguity of that misleading term Caesa-
ropapism at first glance seems avoided with respect to the external
and esoteric realms of the church. But, besides being rather unwieldy,
Caesaroprocuratorismis inadequate in that the "procurator" portion
carries no connotation of association with the church.
Another suggestion might be Caesaropaternalism or Caesarocy-
bernesis, the Greek word cybernesis pertaining to the act of govern-
ing. But the term paternalism is certainly too weak in scope and
Caesarocybernesis on its side is overly strong and secular sounding.
Some years ago Professor E. Kantarowicz, in a lecture concerned in
part with this same question of Caesaropapism, suggested as a sub-
stitute term the word Christomimnetes("imitator of Christ"). Though
the term would seem accurately to reflect the position of the emperor
as the vice-gerent of God on earth, it does not, at least explicitly
enough, express his authority over the two institutions of church and
state as such.
It is very difficult, unfortunately, to find one word that would
reflect the shades of meaning that we have pointed out in the relation-
ship of emperor and church. What is needed perhaps is a term that
 CHURCH AND STATE IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE 399
combines something of the kinds of titles applied to Queen Elizabeth
I of England-Queen by the Grace of God, Defender of the Faith,
and Supreme Governor of the church. But even these are not en-
tirely accurate if applied to Byzantium. Supreme Governor of the
church is perhaps too strong, nor do the titles convey the aura of
sanctity, the profound mystique ascribed to the Byzantine Emperor
by his people. Nevertheless, though a satisfactory term is yet to be
found, we should cease to apply the word Caesaropapismto Byzantine
political theory if by that term is meant an all-pervasive imperial con-
trol not only over temporal activities but over all aspects of the life of
the church as well. As we have tried to show in this study by means
of a new approach to the material, the Byzantine emperor was not a
true kingpriest as implied in the term Caesaropapism.

1. The literature on the relationship of (Cambridge, 1954) 13 ("The emperor

Byzantine emperor and church, especial-
ly on the specific question of the term
Caesaropapism is inadequate. A few
authorities who support the thesis of
a more limited imperial control over
the church are: G. Ostrogorsky, "Re-
lations between Church and State in
Byzantium" (in Russian), Annales de
l'institut Kondakov, IV (1931) 121ff.;
F. Dvornik, "Emperors, Popes, and
General Councils," Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, no. 6 (1951) 1-23; N. Baynes,
"The Byzantine State," Byzantine
Studies and Other Essays (London,
1955) esp. 51ff.; E. Barker, Social and
Political Thought in Byzantium (Ox-
ford, 1957) 92; W. Ensslin, "The
Emperor and the Imperial Administra-
tion," Byzantium: An Introduction to
East Roman Civilization (Oxford,
1948) ed. Baynes and Moss, esp. 275ff.;
J. Hussey, The Byzantine World (Lon-
don, 1957) 21 etc.; Ph. Sherrard, The
Greek East and the Latin West: A
Study in the Christian Tradition
(London, 1959) 26, 91. A. Alivizatos,
"Caesaropapismus in den byzantinisch-
en Kirchlichen Gesetzen und den Can-
ones," Acts of XI International Byzan-
tine Congress 1958 (Munich, 1960)
15-20. Examples of scholars supporting
the view of absolute imperial control
over the church are: M. Jugie, Le
Schisme byzantin (Paris, 1941) 10
("Caesaropapism incontestably should
bear the chief responsibility for the
preparation of the schism. "); Ch. Diehl,
Byzantium: Greatness and Decline
(New Brunswick, 1957) 29 ("The
emperor was as absolute and infallible
in the spiritual as in the temporal
sphere."); A. Diomedes, "Source and
Extent of Imperial Power in Byzan-
tium" (in Greek), Byzantina-Metaby-
zantina, I (1949) 39-69 ("He ruled
the church as he ruled the state . . .
consecrating bishops."); M. Anastos,
"Political Theory in the Lives of the
Slavonic Saints Constantine and Me-
thodius," Harvard Slavic Studies, II
was supreme on earth... and prevailed
even in the formulation of dogma.");
Anastos, "Church and State during the
First Iconoclast Controversy 726-87 "
Bicerche di storia religiosa I, 24,
Studi in onore di G. La Piana (1957)
279ff. Cf also F. Dolger, Byz. Zeit.,
43 (1950) 146f., 38 (1938) 240, 36
(1936) 145-57. A. Vasiliev, History of
the Byzantine Empire (Madison, 1952)
258 writes: "Leo III's view was the
accepted Caesaropapistic view of the
Byzantine Emperors." And now G.
Pilati, Chiesa e stato nei primi quindici
secoli (Rome, 1961) uses the term
Caesaropapism, 60, etc.
2. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church, ed. F. Cross (London, 1957)
under "Caesaropapism" says that the
term means absolute control over all
aspects of the church "including mat-
ters (e.g., doctrine) normally reserved
to ecclesiastical authority." This is the
interpretation of the term as used in
this study.
3. In E. Barker, Social and Political
Thought in Byzantium (Oxford, 1957)
92.
4. Ibid., 96. Also cf. the famous novel 6
of Justinian (in Barker, 75) which
likewise emphasizes the concord between
the two powers. And see a letter of
John II Comnenus to the pope on the
division of spheres (in S. Lampros,
Neos Hellenomnemon [in Greek] XI
[Athens, 1914] 109-11).
5. Not all critics agree about Cerularius'
actual intentions; it is sometimes said,
perhaps not quite accurately, that he
aspired to be a Byzantine Hildebrand.
On this see the qualifying remarks of
J. Hussey, Church and Learning in the
Byzantine Empire (London, 1937)
152-57 and esp. A. Michel, Humbert
und Kerullarios (Paderborn, 1925-30);
also L. Br6hier, La schisme orientale
du XIe siecle (Paris, 1899) (old but
still useful); and Bury, "Roman Em-
perors," in Selected Essays (Cam-
bridge, 1930) 210-14.
400 CHURCH HISTORY
6. See below, text and note 69.
7. See below text and note 50. This seems
to have been demanded by the patri-
arch first from the Monophysite-lean-
ing Anastasius in the late sixth cen-
tury. On the insistence of certain later
patriarchs on the moral fitness of the
emperor for his office see below text
and notes 31, 32.
8. See Balsamon, "In canonem XVI Con-
cilii Carthaginiensis," ed. MPG, vol.
138, p. 93 (cited in this respect by A.
Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Em-
pire, 470). In another passage Balsa-
mon (in Rhalles and Potlis, Syntagma
of Divine and Holy Canons [in Greek],
IV, 544-45), says that "the power and
activity of the emperor concern body
and souls while the power and activity
of the patriarch concern only the soul."
9. Balsamon's conclusion is that since a
bishop can order priests and monks to
engage in certain secular work, so all
the more can the emperor do so, as he
can nominate bishops (Rhalles and
Potlis, II, 229). But note again this
does not here refer to dogma. Cf. Zon-
aras, op. cit., III, 336.
10. Horos is the Byzantine term for the
decision of an ecumenical council re-
garding dogma. See H. Alivizatos, The
Holy Canons (in Greek) (Athens,
1949) 21.
11. See L. Brehier, Diet. d'histoire et geog.
eccl., IX, cols. 160-61.
12. John of Euchaita of the eleventh cen-
tury speaks of both emporor and
patriarch as "Christio - the anointed
of the Lord," (MPG, vol. 120, cols.
1163, 1183). See title 3, pt. 1, of
Epanagoge (Barker, op. cit., 91):
"The patriarch is a living animate
image of Christ." For Vlastares see
Rhalles and Potlis, VI, p. 428, who calls
the patriarch the "living icon of
Christ." I cannot find this term used
of the patriarch in the earlier canon-
ists and its use during the later cen-
turies may therefore be meaningful
with respect to the imperial-patriarch-
al power relationship. Also see Balsa-
mon in Rhalles and Potlis, III, 44-45.
13. Cf. Bury, Selected Essays, 120-21,
and Ensslin, "The Emperor and Im-
perial Administration," 280.
14. On "Caesaropapism" and the Roman
Pontifex Maximus see esp. Ostrogorsky,
" Relations between Church and State in
Byzantium," (in Russian) 122f. Cf.
Sherrard, Greek East and Latin West,
91f. For bibl. on Eusebius see below,
note 18.
15. Title used by Balsamon, e.g., in Rhalles
and Potlis, III 44 (christos Kyriou).
16. See Eusebius' Triakontaeterikos, pt. 1,
197, 11. 1-3, and pt. 3, p. 201, 11.
19-21, in Eusebius Werke, I (Leipzig,
1902) ed. by I. A. Heikel.
17. This celebrated phrase of course has
been variously interpreted. See J.
Straub, "Kaiser Konstantin als epis-
kopos ton ektos," Studia patristica, I
(1957), 678-95. See also the recent
work of P. Demetropoulos, The Faith
of the Ancient Church as Canon of
Life and the World (in Greek) (Ath-
ens, 1959) 52.
18. For a fine summary of certain aspects
of Eusebius' political thought see N.
Baynes, "Eusebius and the Christian
Empire," Annuaire de I'institut de
philologie et d'histoire orientales, II
(1933-34) 13-18. Cf. Ph. Sherrard,
Greek East and Latin West (London,
1959) 92ff. Much fuller is E. Schwartz,
Kaiser Constantin und die christliche
Kirche, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1936); also
F. Cranz, "Kingdom and Polity in
Eusebius of Caesarea, " Harvard
Theological Review, 45 (1952) 47-66,
and bibl. p. 48. And now cf. Y. Congar,
After Nine Hundred Years (New York,
1959) 14-17.
19. F. Dolger, review in Byz. Zeit. (1931)
449 of Ostrogorsky, "Church and
State," says: "The power balance of
church and state was regulated ac-
cording to the personalities who faced
each other at various times." For the
celebrated Western phrase "Vicar of
Christ" there seems to be no exact
equivalent in Greek. E. Kantorowicz's
suggestion, in a lecture, of Christo-
mimetes ("imitator of Christ") is
good but with not the same emphasis.
The term commonly used on imperial
Byzantine bulls, Pistos Basileus, is
probably more or less equivalent to
"Defender of the Faith."
20. For a general account of these clashes
(in English) see J. Bury, Later Boman
Empire (London, 1923) and Later Ro-
man Empire, 1st ed. (London, 1889).
Constantius imposed Arianism during
his reign, Zeno for a time leaned to-
ward Monophysitism, and Heraclius
imposed Monothelitism as a solution,
while Leo III issued his edict outlaw-
ing the icons in 730 and Constantine
V and Leo V continued this iconoclastic
policy.
21. Bury, Later Roman Empire, 403, notes
cogently that Basiliscus by his Ency-
clical and Zeno by his Henoticon, vir-
tually "assumed the functions of an
ecumenical council. "
22. G. Ostrogorsky, "Relations between
Church and State" (in Russian),
IV (1933) 121ff. (cf. Dolger
review, Byz. Zeit., 31 [1931] 449)
cites artistic evidence to show that
in the earlier period the emperor
was portrayed as the priest-king Mel-
chisedek, but later artists presented
the emperor and patriarch standing
side by side as Moses and Aaron.
23. Of. J. Hussey, The Byzantine World,
90-92. Cf. H. Moss review, in Journal
of Ecclesiastical History (1960) 114,
who favors the view of imperial abso-
lutism over the church.
24. See above notes 3-4.
25. Phrase is from Ph. Sherrard, Greek
East and Latin West (London, 1955),
93.
26. On tradition (paradosis) see F. Gavin,
Some Aspects of Contemporary Greek
Orthodox Thought (London, 1923)
 CHURCH AND STATE IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE
25-30 and esp. Ch. Androutsos, Dog-
matike of the Orthodox Eastern Church
(Athens, 1956) 7ff.
27. A. Gasquet, De l'autorite imperiale en
matiere religieuse d Byzance (Paris,
1879). Sherrard, Greek East and Latin
West, 92.
28. See Dolger review, Byz. Zeit. (1931)
449. It is of significance according to
Ensslin "The Emperor and the Imper-
ial Administration," 255, that in the
ceremonial of the tenth century both
emperor and patriarch paid each other 35.
the tribute of formal proskynesis.
29. Constantine Porphyrogenitus De cere-
moniis (Bonn ed.) pt. 1, pp. 564-66.
Pseudo-Codinus, De officiis, agrees
(PG., 156, col. 116-17). On the arbi-
trariness of the emperor's choice of
patriarch, see V. Laurent, "Le rituel
de l'investiture du patriarch byz. au
debut du XVe siecle," in Bulletin
Sect. Hist. Acad. Roum., 28 (1947)
218-32. Also, Dolger, Byz. Zeit. (1931)
449f.; 28 (1947) 218-32. Cf. L. Breh-
ier, "L 'investiture des patriarches de
Constantinople au Moyen Age," Studi
e Testi, no. 3 (Rome, 1946) 368-72, 36.
who points out that "not a single
patriarch was chosen except by the
emperor's will." (Yet witness the case
of 1450, see note 33 below). Br6hier
says that the imperial power of selec- 37.
tion had been recognized by custom,
if not by juridical act, since the ninth
and tenth centuries.
30. See Barker, op. cit., 8. Emperor Anas-
tasius in 495 had a synod of bishops 38.
depose the patriarch Euphemius (P.
Oharanis Church and State in the Later 39.
Roman Empire [Madison, 1939] 27.)
There is no canon or canonist's opinion
explicitly stating the emperor had the
right to depose a patriarch.
31. On Photius see F. Dvornik, The Photian
40.
Schism, History and Legend (Cam-
bridge, 1948). On Nicholas Mysticus, 41.
see Ostrogorsky, Byzantine State, 230-
31.
32. On Cerularius see above, note 5. On
Arsenios see Geanakoplos, Emperor
Michael Palaeologus and the West
(Cambridge, 1959) 235, 272, etc.
33. See Brehier, Cambridge Medieval His-
tory, IV, 624 and E. Pears, The De-
struction of the Greek Empire (Lon-
don-New York, 1903) 202. Under the in-
fluence of the anti-unionist George
Scholarios, the synod deposed the pa-
triarch Gregory. It used to be thought 42.
erroneously that he was replaced by
the monk Athanasius. See Ch. Pap-
aioannou, "The Praktika of the al-
leged final synod in St. Sophia," in
Eccesiastike Aletheia (in Greek) XV
(1896); and Gennadios of Helioupolis, 43.
"Was there ever a Patriarch Athan-
asios II Orthodoxia (in Greek),
XVIII (1943) 117-23. 44.
34. Also Balsamon in Rhalles and Potlis,
Syntagma ton Hieron Canonon (in
Greek) (Athens, 1852) II, 23 ("It is
given to the emperor to accomplish
changes of episcopal sees.") We should
401
mention here also the emperor's au-
thority, in practice, to control eccles-
iastical property. But though in this
respect the emperor usually secured
his aims, the church's opposition could
at times be very strong. Note for ex-
ample Nicephorus Phocas' edict of 964
(following the example of Romanus
Lecapenus) issued in the aim of curb-
ing the increase in ecclesiastical prop-
erty. This had to be withdrawn, how-
ever.
In a recent lecture (yet unpublished)
Professor G. Florovsky set forth the
view, certainly correct, that modern
Western scholarly views on Byzantine
conciliar theory have been shaped far
too much by the influence of the theor-
ies of the Western Conciliar movement
-theories of course alien to the Byzan-
tine East. (He also mantains that the
ecumenical councils are to be consider-
ed as ad hoc events rather than in-
stitutions.) See also Stephanides, "The
Last Stage in the Development of
Church-State Relations in Byzantium,"
Ep. Het. Byz. Spoudon (1953) 27-40.
See D. Geanakoplos, "The Council of
Florence and the Problem of Union
between Greek and Latin Churches,"
Church History (1955) text and note
91. Also J. Gill, The Council of Flor-
ence (Oxford, 1959), 288.
On the non-ecumenicity of Lyons for
the Greeks, who considered it a "Rob-
ber Council," see Geanakoplos, Em-
peror Michael, 263ff.
See Geanakoplos, "Council of Flor-
ence," text and notes 25-29.
E.g., the ecclesiastical tomos henoseos
of a council in 920, signed by the em-
peror, became part of the law of the
land. (V. Grumel, Regestes des actes du
patriarchat de Constantinople, II, Reg.
669).
See text and notes 11 to 15.
See esp. L. Brehier, "Hiereus kai Ba-
sileus" (title in Greek), Memorial L.
Petit (Bucharest, 1948), 41-45. A Gas-
quet, L'autorite imperiale, 50-55, re-
fers to the emperor 's ' sacerdotal "
character with respect to these privi-
leges. Also M. Mitard, "Le pouvoir
imperial au temps de Leon VI, le
Sage," Melanges Diehl, I (1930) 219:
"in certain respects he was a sacer-
dotal personnage." See Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis, I, 621-
22.
On the cutting of a certain amount of
hair from the head of the Porphyro-
genitus in his infancy, a kind of ton-
sure or a sort of koura see Brehier,
loc. cit., 42-43. Source is De Ceremoni-
is, I, 621-22.
H. Monnier, Les Novelles de Leon le
Sage (Bordeaux, 1923) 211ff. Also
Ostrogorsky, Byzantine State, 215-16.
Androutsos, Dogmatike (in Greek), 52.
The sole significant difference between
Orthodox and Catholics is the exact
moment the miraculous transformation
into Christ's body and blood takes
place. Yet the Eastern church objects
402 CHURCH HISTORY
to the Western Scholastic differentia-
tion between accidents and substance.
45. Rhalles and Potlis, II, 467.
46. Rhalles and Potlis, II, 467. Cf. Balsa-
mon, ibid., IV, 544, which refers to
dikir (two candles) not trikir (three
candles). Dikir symbolizes the dual na-
ture of Christ, trikir refers to the Tri-
nity.
47. Greek priests are not anointed at or-
dination, there being merely a laying
on of hands and prayer. This con-
stitutes a sacrament, however.
48. The most important recent, authorita-
tive works on this controversial ques-
tion are by G. Ostrogorsky, "Zur Kai-
sersalbung und Schilderhebung im
spatbyzantinischen Kr6nungszeremon-
iell," Historia, IV (1955) 246-56 (cf.
Ostrogorsky, Byzantine State, 380) and
the earlier article of Ostrogorsky
and E. Stein, "Die Kronungsordnungen
des Ceremonienbuches,' ' Byzantion,
VII (1932) 200, which affirms unc-
tion formed no customary part of the
Byzantine coronation ceremony until
the 13th Century. Cf. F. Brightman,
"Byzantine Imperial Coronations," Jl.
of Theological Studies, II (1901) 383ff.
See also the very recent work of C.
Christophilopoulou, Election, Proclama-
tion and Coronation of the Byzantine
Emperor (Athens, 1956). Cf. S. Runci-
man, Byzantine Civilization (New York,
1933), 66, who says however, that it
was the Palaeologan emperors who intro-
duced the Western custom of anoint-
ment. On the Western custom of royal
anointment see P. Schramm, A His-
tory of the English Coronation (Ox-
ford, 1937), Chap. 1.
49. See esp. W. Sichel, "Das byzantinis-
che Kronungrecht bis zum 10. Jahrhun-
dert," Byz. Zeit., VII (1898) 548 and
B. Stephanides, Ecclesiastical History
(in Greek) (Athens, 1948) 138, note
1, who believes anointment began prob-
ably under Basil I. Cf. also Ensslin,
"The Emperor and Imperial Adminis-
tration," 273. A passage of Balsamon,
in Rhalles and Potlis, IV, 544-45, seems
to speak of emperors and patriarchs
being anointed already in the 12th
century ("as the emperors are, so are
the patriarchs great in the ability to
teach through the power of the holy
chrism.") But this is doubtless a meta-
phorical use of the term, since it is
certainly clear that the patriarchs were
never anointed. Also E. Kantocowicz,
Laudes regiae (Berkeley 1946) passim.
50. P. Charanis, Church and State in the
Later Roman Empire: The Religious
Policy of Anastasius I (Madison, 1939)
12.
51. Byzantine 260
Ostrogorsky, State,
(source, Leo the Deacon, Bonn ed.,
98f.)
52. Ostrogorsky, Byzantine State, 56;
Bury, "Constitution," 118; Charanis,
' The Crown Modiolus once More,"
Byzantion, XIII (1938) 337-81.
53. When a Protestant is converted to
Orthodoxy he is not rebaptized but
given the chrism. Greek priests cannot
perform all the sacraments: they can-
not ordain priests and only bishops
have the right to bless the chrism of
baptism, though priests can administer
it.
54. Rhalles and Potlis, II, 467. See Ensslin,
loc. cit., 275.
55. The minor orders of the Greek church
(cantor, reader, etc.) may be considered
clerics of a lower type, but since they
must receive the heirothesia which the
emperor did not (he was of course an-
ointed), the emperor cannot even in
this sense be considered a cleric. It
might be noted that in contrast to the
heirothesia of the lower orders, the
higher order of clergy-deacon, priest,
bishop-receive the heirotonia which is
a sacrament. However, Diehl, Byzan-
tium: Greatness and Decline, 29, calls
the emperor a priest. Stephanides,
Ecclesiastical History, 138 (quoting
Demetrius Chomatianos, from Rhalles
and Potlis, V, 428ff.) says the emperor
could do anything in the church except
administer the actual sacraments
("plen monon tou hierourgein"). But
cf. N. Baynes, "The Byzantine State,"
Byzantine Studies and Other Essays
(London, 1955) 49, who says (referring
to the earliest Byzantine emperors):
"it took the Christian Emperor many
a year to learn he was not a priest."
56. I agree with Ostrogorsky, Byzantine
State, 218: "However strongly imper-
ial influence might exert itself on the
ecclesiastical organization, the Emper-
or is still only a layman . . . and can
be merely the protector, not the head
of the church."
57. M. Anastos, "Political Theory in the
Lives of the Slavic Saints," 13, says
that "in general the emperors prevailed
even in the formulation of dogma."
58. On the peculiarly Byzantine concept
of oikonomia there is little written.
See now H. Alivizatos, Oikonomia and
the Canon Law of the Orthodox Church
(in Greek) (Athens, 1949). Dvornik,
The Rhotian Schism, 8, 24, etc. J.
Langford, A Dictionary of the Eastern
Orthodox Church (London 1923) 47ff.
Runciman, Eastern Schism, 5, calls oiko-
nomia "elasticity in the interests of the
Christian community." Alivizatos, op.
cit., shows oikonomia was " a way out
of the anomaly created by and proceed-
ing from the imposition of extreme
severity and precision in observance of
canonical order." (We might possibly
compare oikonomia to the principle of
equity in civil law.) Oikonomia is, we
may say, the relaxing of disciplinary
canons-regarding performance of the
sacraments but not dogma-for the
benefit of the community, See F. Ga-
vin, Some Aspects of Contemporary
Greek Orthodox Thought (London,
1936) 292. The Byzantine historians
Pachymeres (Bonn) 387, and Gregoras
(Bonn) 127, imply that the ecclesiastics
of Michael Palaeologus' reign, dis-
turbed over his unionist policy, be-
 CHURCH AND STATE IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE
lieved that oikonomia did not, however,
apply where dogma was involved, but
only with respect to church organiza-
tion.
59. See Androutsos, Dogmatike, 294ff.,
and the interesting points of view in
Ph. Sherrard, Greek East, 54ff. Also
Gavin, Orthodox Thought 272ff. On
the sacraments, Gavin, 305-75. 0. Dyo-
bouniotes, The Dogmatics of And-
routsos reviewed (Athens, 1907) thinks
that the lower orders are sacramenta-
lia. On sacramentalia, see also Gavin,
305.
60. The Epanagoge (Barker, (op. cit., 90)
reads that the emperor must maintain
all that is contained in the Scriptures
and all set down by the seven ecumen-
ical councils and at Byzantine law.
61. See Androutsos, Dogmatilce, 314ff.,
Gavin, Orthodox Thought, 278ff. The
first mention in the East of seven sac-
craments was by the monk Job in 1270,
and by Michael Palaeologus at the
Council of Lyons in 1274 (Androutsos,
314). Peter Lombard and Pope Alex-
ander III apparently first enumerated
seven in the West.
62. Bury, Later Roman Empire, TI, 375,
393.
63. See G. Ostrogorsky, "Les debuts de
la Querelle des images," Melanges
Diehl, I (1930) 238ff. Previously the
date was considered to be 726 (Diehl,
"Leo III and the Isaurian Dynasty,"
in Cambridge Medieval History, IV, 9).
64. See M. Anastos, "Justiniann's Despotic
Control over the Church as Illustrated
by his Edict on Theopaschite Formula
and Letter to Pope John in 533," in
Zbor, Bad. Viz. Inst. 312 (= Melanges
Oskogorsky, II [1964] 1-11.). Also
see H. Alivizatos, "Les rapports
de la legislation ecclesiastique de Jus-
tinien avee les canons de l 'glise,"
Atti del congresso internazionale di
diritto romano, II (Rome, 1935) 79ff.
65. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael, passim.
66. Ibid., 270 and 274, which also cites G.
Metochites, Historia Dogmatica, in A.
Mai, Patrum Nova Bibliotheca, VIII
(Rome, 1871) 38.
67. Ducas (Bonn), 254 and 275.
68. Cf. Bury, Later Roman Empire, 403,
who says that Basiliscus' Encyclical
and Zeno's Henoticon assert the imper-
ial right to dictate to the church and
pronounce on doctrine. ("They virt-
ually assumed the functions of an ecu-
menical council.") Nicetas (Bonn),
275, complains that the emperors set
themselves up as "definers of dogma."
69. For the list of nine powers (all per-
taining to administration of the church
and control over its prelates, admin-
istratively speaking), see V. Laurent,
"Les droits de 1 empereur en matibre
ecclesiastique. L'accord de 1380-82,"
Revue des etudes byzantines (1954-55)
5-20. Cf. this article with B. Stephan-
ides, "The Last Stage of the Develop-
ment of Church-State Relations in
Byzantium," (in Greek), Ep. Het. Byz.
Spoudon (1953) 29.
403
70. On Michael's persecution of the monks,
clergy, and people see Geanakoplos,
Emperor Michael, 264-76.
71. See J. Gill, The Council of Florence,
384-85. Also N. Tomadakes, George
Scholarios and his Political Ideas (in
Greek) (Athens, 1954). In the Acta
Graeca, ed. J. Gill, pt. 2, 433, Emperor
John VIII is quoted as saying that the
emperor must follow the council's de-
cision in dogma because he feels the
council cannot err. (The Acta Graeca
was pro-unionist.)
72. See Bury. Later Roman Empire, II,
383ff. (On Justinian's edict over the
Three Chapters). Also ibid., 381-83
(on Justinian's edict in 543 against the
Origenists, but here he was influenced
by the attitude of many ecclesiastics).
See also H. Alivizatos, Die Kirchliche
Gesetzgebung des Kaisers Justinian I
(Berlin, 1913).
73. On Basiliscus see Bury, Later Roman
Empire, I, 403. On the other attempts
to influence dogmatic formulation,
ibid., passim.
74. Gill, Council of Florence, 349ff. Source
is Ducas, 216.
75. On this see Geanakoplos, "Council of
Florence," text and notes 72-84.
76. See H. Alivizatos, "The Conscience of
the Church" (in Greek) (Athens,
1954). Also S. Tsankov, The Eastern
Orthodox Church, trans. D. Lowrie
(London, 1929) 90-92. He says the
highest authority in the church is the
community of the church, not the bish-
ops alone nor the clergy nor the laity
alone. "The real guardian of piety is
the body of the church, the people
itself." N. Zernov, Eastern Christen-
dom (New York, 1961) 231: "The
Council's decisions require endorsement
by the whole community." This ques-
tion of the conscience of the church
was perhaps first put forth by the
Russian scholar A. S. Ohomjakov in
several studies including L'eglise latine
et le Protestantisme au point de vue
de l'eglise d'Orient (Lausanne, 1872).
Some modern Greek theologians sub-
scribe to the theory (see above); others
would place the final authority in the
clergy as successors of Christ: cf. P.
Trembelas, "The Laymen in the Orth-
odox Church," (in Greek), Ecclesia
(1930) 385ff. and later issues. Also cf.
Dyobouniotes in his dogmatic work.
See finally Io. Kotsones, The Position
of Laymen in the Ecclesiastical Organ-
ism (in Greek) (Athens, 1956).
77. Ducas (Bonn) 216. Also cf. Gill, Coun-
cil of Florence, 349.
78. See M. Anastos, "Justinian's Despotic
control over the Church" 1-11.
79. In 1721 Peter established a kind of
"Spiritual Department" or Holy Syn-
od to replace the old patriarchate.
Peter tells us that this was established
because the simple folk could not
distinguish the spiritual from the sov-
ereign power, believing the spiritual
authority higher than the temporal.